technical experts

[vetran]

Ok, your lesson for the day ....

Most, but not all very good technical people are on the Autistic spectrum. If you don't know what that means google it and come back.

If you are going to recruit in a technical field the sooner you and your client realise this the better the outcomes will be. Put them in a room on their own, tell them what you want them to do. Listen to their complaints and ignore them, if they set out a solution for your problem agree with them, unless its going to cost more than you have or take longer than you need.

Ignore the personal habits and odd behaviour, it comes with the territory.

If they want some shiny suited yes man, send one of your pimp mates along.

yes but 'consultants' need to be able to fake the shiny suited smooth tongued image, there are a few out there that can. Otherwise become a permie where they spoon feed you.

[EternalOptimist]

I sat with Fermet for nearly an hour discussing the problem with the last Theorem prior to the meeting. His face turned blue and he began to gnaw the edge of the carpet. I dont think he gets it

it sure aint easy being a agent

[DodgyAgent]

So basically your dishwasher is broken, the bloke who came to fix it told you that you're a moron for putting certain non dishwasher safe items in there and the wife isn't impressed because the washing up is piling up in the sink.



So you're buying her a new pair of rubber gloves.

[DodgyAgent]

Don't sell yourself short Dodgy. I'm sure they gave you the benefit of the doubt.

I have always been called "the nearly man"

[SpontaneousOrder]

A few years ago in the MoJ building, Petty france...

<insert sepia flashback filter>

Me: Hey. So you want to rewrite this particular module? Great - it really needs it.
MoJ: That's right. We've noticed that the average CQ [ClearQuest] is costing us 11k to fix, each. We figure it's be a good investment to tidy this up & rationalise it to make future maintenance & enhancements cheaper & more reliable.
Me: <in my head>Hrmm... yeah. Perhaps paying Logica 50% of that just to produce pointless paperwork to justify their middle-man position has something to do with that</in my head>
Me: Sure, makes sense. I'm the guy who's mainly been addressing these CQs - hence me now being 'the expert'. Those have mainly been very trivial fixes - it's just finding them in the convoluted code to begin with that's expensive.
MoJ: Sure. it doesn't help that we tend to have 4 or 5 redundant ways of achieving the same thing - apart from creating more code it means that when we alter one we tend to break another.
Me: Yup. If you're happy to simplify the UX then we can definitely make this much easier to maintain.
MoJ: So did you manage to extract all of our business rules out of the code?
Me: As I warned might be the case originally, I've managed to identify a handful, but most of the [numerous] rules seem to be emergent from the tangle of code - rather than actually being defined as such. I've managed to unpick these ones... We really need you to provide the rationalised rules that you want in the new version.
MoJ: Ok, that's fine.... <chatter chatter chatter/>
MoJ: See you next time. Are you going to the pub?
Me: Sure. I'll see you there.

...

Another train ride three weeks later...

Me: Hey guys. What's new?
MoJ: Hey. Ok, so here's what we want...
MoJ: As you know we have a lot of redundancy when it comes to achieving different tasks in the system, and all of our thousands of users across the 640 courts use the system differently - we don't know exactly how everyone uses it.
Me: Ok.
MoJ: And also we're not actually sure what our business rules are and we don't want to risk disrupting our users - people have just gotten used to things working a certain way.
Me: Erm... Ok. Well, at least if we can rationalise the UI it cuts the code & complexity down a decent amount. That'll make it cheaper and less error prone to make fixes & changes in future.
MoJ: Well... the thing is that like we said, we don't know how the users in each of our courts actually use the UI, and we don't want to upset them by making them have to take a different route to do the same thing they are used to doing a different way.
Me: <in my head>... da fuq?</in my head>
MoJ: So what we need you guys to do is is to rewrite the system, the same as it currently is, but better.
Me: Better?
MoJ: Yes, better. We don't know our rules so we need you to rewrite the code to be structured and maintainable, etc - but without changing the existing rules.
Me: The ones that are unidentifiable and emergent from the chaos?
MoJ: That's right! And also, as we don't want to upset any users by changing their experience, we need you to keep all of the multiple ways to navigate the same functionality in the UI - but make it more simple.
Me: Ok, that's no problem.
MoJ: Pub?
Me: Oh, I can't thanks - I've got get back and... er... walk my dad's dog. Bye!

Five days later back at employer's office...

Me: <hands in notice/>

[DodgyAgent]

A few years ago in the MoJ building, Petty france...

<insert sepia flashback filter>

Me: Hey. So you want to rewrite this particular module? Great - it really needs it.
MoJ: That's right. We've noticed that the average CQ [ClearQuest] is costing us 11k to fix, each. We figure it's be a good investment to tidy this up & rationalise it to make future maintenance & enhancements cheaper & more reliable.
Me: <in my head>Hrmm... yeah. Perhaps paying Logica 50% of that just to produce pointless paperwork to justify their middle-man position has something to do with that</in my head>
Me: Sure, makes sense. I'm the guy who's mainly been addressing these CQs - hence me now being 'the expert'. Those have mainly been very trivial fixes - it's just finding them in the convoluted code to begin with that's expensive.
MoJ: Sure. it doesn't help that we tend to have 4 or 5 redundant ways of achieving the same thing - apart from creating more code it means that when we alter one we tend to break another.
Me: Yup. If you're happy to simplify the UX then we can definitely make this much easier to maintain.
MoJ: So did you manage to extract all of our business rules out of the code?
Me: As I warned might be the case originally, I've managed to identify a handful, but most of the [numerous] rules seem to be emergent from the tangle of code - rather than actually being defined as such. I've managed to unpick these ones... We really need you to provide the rationalised rules that you want in the new version.
MoJ: Ok, that's fine.... <chatter chatter chatter/>
MoJ: See you next time. Are you going to the pub?
Me: Sure. I'll see you there.

...

Another train ride three weeks later...

Me: Hey guys. What's new?
MoJ: Hey. Ok, so here's what we want...
MoJ: As you know we have a lot of redundancy when it comes to achieving different tasks in the system, and all of our thousands of users across the 640 courts use the system differently - we don't know exactly how everyone uses it.
Me: Ok.
MoJ: And also we're not actually sure what our business rules are and we don't want to risk disrupting our users - people have just gotten used to things working a certain way.
Me: Erm... Ok. Well, at least if we can rationalise the UI it cuts the code & complexity down a decent amount. That'll make it cheaper and less error prone to make fixes & changes in future.
MoJ: Well... the thing is that like we said, we don't know how the users in each of our courts actually use the UI, and we don't want to upset them by making them have to take a different route to do the same thing they are used to doing a different way.
Me: <in my head>... da fuq?</in my head>
MoJ: So what we need you guys to do is is to rewrite the system, the same as it currently is, but better.
Me: Better?
MoJ: Yes, better. We don't know our rules so we need you to rewrite the code to be structured and maintainable, etc - but without changing the existing rules.
Me: The ones that are unidentifiable and emergent from the chaos?
MoJ: That's right! And also, as we don't want to upset any users by changing their experience, we need you to keep all of the multiple ways to navigate the same functionality in the UI - but make it more simple.
Me: Ok, that's no problem.
MoJ: Pub?
Me: Oh, I can't thanks - I've got get back and... er... walk my dad's dog. Bye!

Five days later back at employer's office...

Me: <hands in notice/>

MoJ telephone call) DA hi you there?
DA, Yes sir lovely client sir sir sir sir, what can I do for you?
Moj: Hi DA lovely to speak to you again after all these years. I have got this piece of work that needs doing only my contractor (who to be honest is one of those teccie tw*ts that thinks he is more important than my users) has walked out on the job can you get me a development team and project manager to do the work
DA: Of course sir, sir sir client.. what's your budget>
MoJ: Well its six people including a PM and design and coders at £500 per day.
DA (showing off his vast technical knowledge) what about the testing?
MoJ oh yes I forget. I was going to give that to some bloke here called Mitch the EUworshipper only he's a bit expensive.
DA If I can get you someone for half the price?
MoJ: Of course that would be brilliant

DA: Pub?
Moj: lets go.

The next day

DA on the phone... Hi Bob is that you??

[EternalOptimist]

moj - 'Dodgy is that you ?'
DA - 'Slurp slurp, slurrrp. yes sir'
moj - 'Dodgy, would you dress up in a gorilla suit and let us fire darts into yer bum for 22% ?'
DA - 'Slurp slurp, slurrrp. yes sir'

DA - 'Ow. Ow....its going foggy'

[DodgyAgent]

moj - 'Dodgy is that you ?'
DA - 'Slurp slurp, slurrrp. yes sir'
moj - 'Dodgy, would you dress up in a gorilla suit and let us fire darts into yer bum for 22% ?'
DA - 'Slurp slurp, slurrrp. yes sir'

DA - 'Ow. Ow....its going foggy'

[vetran]

moj - 'Dodgy is that you ?'
DA - 'Slurp slurp, slurrrp. yes sir'
moj - 'Dodgy, would you dress up in a gorilla suit and let us fire darts into yer bum for 22% ?'
DA - 'Slurp slurp, slurrrp. yes sir'

DA - 'Ow. Ow....its going foggy'

you sure you are in the right thread?

[Mich the Tester]

I have always been called "the nearly man"

Like Fatima Whitbread?